Why an old tax return suddenly mattered in an executive's dismissal case
An investment firm executive suing for wrongful dismissal has lost his bid to keep two things private from the employer he is suing: an old tax filing and a full month of his family's phone records.
The executive began as Fairwater Capital Corporation's president and chief investment officer on January 2, 2020, and was terminated on or about June 29, 2020. He later sued for wrongful dismissal, claiming $990,000 plus interest and costs. In a decision released June 29, 2026, Associate Justice P.J. Barnes of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice ruled on the employer's motion to compel documents.
Fairwater wanted three things. It asked whether the executive had filed a 2019 Canadian income tax return and, if so, a copy of it. It sought the full February 2020 cell phone bill, of which only 4 of 27 pages had been produced. And it asked for more time to question him under oath.
The executive opposed the motion on every point, calling the tax question irrelevant and arguing that the 23 withheld phone pages held nothing but the private calls of his spouse and children. Barnes granted the motion.
Why an old tax return mattered
The employer's position was that the executive's earnings before he joined the firm were relevant, because his own pleadings raised his professional history. Barnes agreed, finding that the amended statement of claim had placed his qualifications, employment background and business reputation in play.
On the judge's reading, those pleadings suggested that the executive had been induced to leave a successful career to take the role, which made his prior income relevant to any damages calculation. As Barnes put it, "the plaintiff's pre-hiring employment and business history has been placed at issue in the Amended Statement of Claim, which in my view makes his 2019 income tax declarations fair game for the purpose of the litigation."
After the motion was argued, the executive's lawyer emailed the other side and copied the court, saying his client would not argue at trial that he had run a business in Switzerland in 2019 and had been induced to leave it. A follow-up teleconference was held on June 16, 2026. Barnes found the promise did not relieve the executive of the duty to produce the 2019 return, if he had filed one, because the claim itself was never formally amended.
A month of phone records, and more time to ask
Fairwater also asked for two more hours of questioning. Barnes agreed the executive could be examined again, but capped it at 90 minutes, noting he had already been questioned for nearly seven hours and that Ontario's rules set a seven-hour baseline. The judge left costs for counsel to try to resolve.
The phone bill was the other point of contention. The executive said the 23 withheld pages held only his family's calls. Barnes was not persuaded they were beside the point, pointing to a dispute over whether the executive was in New York or Florida on certain days, which the employer connected to its pleaded allegation of after-acquired cause. He ordered the full, unredacted bill produced.
The executive had relied on the privacy of familial communications. Barnes found the basic call details did not meet that threshold, and rejected the argument: "I do not accept the plaintiff's argument that the basic phone call particulars of his spouse and children contained in the February 2020 Rogers bill should count as 'private, personal material' that should prevent it from being disclosed to Fairwater."
